In over-emphasising economics, analysts may have missed the importance of personality politics.

President Edgar Lungu was re-elected by a slim margin. Credit: UN Women/Ryan Brown.

Despite overseeing clear economic decline since taking over as president in January 2015, Edgar Lungu officially won Zambia’s presidential election with 1, 860, 877 votes. The United Party for National Development’s (UNDP) leader Hakainde Hichilema, the challenger many analysts had predicted would capitalise on the country’s economic woes to emerge victorious (and who has disputed the results), managed 1 760, 347 votes.

So why did Lungu do better than many thought he would? And what did the commentators get wrong?

It seems that one crucial weakness in much analysis of the election was that by focusing in on the political economy and other institutional or legalistic angles, the importance of personality was underestimated. Many arguments assumed that economic issues were paramount in voters’ minds and thus predicted a Hichilema victory. However, in doing so, commentators may have been imposing their own views on the electorate rather than examining how Zambian voters were actually making their decisions.

When asked why they support Lungu, many voters in Zambia say things like “I just love him” and “I love Lungu because he loves me too”. In his campaign, Lungu marketed himself around notions of humbleness, faith, and love of family and nation. He presented himself as a humble man who respects others as equals rather than a saviour with all the solutions to Zambia’s problems. This was in contrast to Hichilema, a wealthy British-trained economist, whose slogan was “HH will fix it” and who surrounded himself with rich businesspeople such as running mate Geoffrey Bwayla Mwamba (GBM).

Lungu presented himself as a “small boy”, who grew up in the Chimwemwe compound of Kitwe, now surrounded by big boys and in need of sympathy. He dressed casually; he danced with the people to his campaign song Dununa Reverse at rallies; and at a Catholic celebration on 6 August, he demonstrated humility by kneeling to greet the Bishops.

Lungu also marketed himself as a loving family man devoted to his wife, children and Mai Jere (his mother). For instance, one of his campaign videos showed Mai Jere selling tomatoes, with Lungu narrating: “She didn’t have much, but made sure she gave all to her family…she didn’t have much but she had love…My mother is just one of the millions of women with the same story in Zambia, it is mothers like her who continue to be the backbone of this nation”.

This story resonated with many Zambians from humble backgrounds, and this image of Lungu tactically contrasted him with GBM who faced allegations of domestic abuse and was seen by some gender activists as a symbol of oppressive patriarchy.

In a deeply religious country, Lungu also made efforts to present himself as a man of faith. In October 2015, many people laughed when the president called for national prayers to deal with the country’s economic problems. But in hindsight, this helped him appeal to a certain constituency. And this faith card frustrated Hichilema’s campaign, which tried to accuse Lungu of being blasphemous, a strategy that backfired.

Although Lungu did not present himself as an incredibly devout Christian, he was widely viewed as a God-fearing man. And many voters said they see Lungu as a sinner who loves his Jameson whiskey, but one who, like many in Zambia, repents every Sunday.

A man for all Zambians

Another key part of Lungu’s image was of being someone who loves his nation and all Zambians of all ethnicities equally. By contrast, it was clear from the start of campaigning that Hichilema is a Tonga. This worked to his favour amongst some voters who celebrated the candidate as one of their own, but worked against him amongst those who believed he was too ethnically conscious.

Lungu attempted to take advantage of this. For example, at a 7 August rally in Livingstone, Southern Province – Hichilema’s backyard – Lungu subtly attacked leadership based on ethnicity and appealed to Zambians to regard each other as equals. Moreover, he capitalised on stereotypes of Tongas as elitist and boastful by punctuating his rallies with the inclusive slogan “One Zambia, One Nation”.

Finally, in his campaign, Lungu presented himself as a man of deeds. He leveraged the benefits of incumbency and on his campaign billboards went beyond promises to articulate results, such as the number of roads, clinics, schools and social projects his Patriotic Front (PF) government had completed.

In almost every Province, Lungu commissioned something that he could point to in his campaign. For example, in Livingstone, Southern Province, he commissioned a 150-megawatt thermal plant in Maamba to feed into the national grid. And on 10 August 2016, the eve of the election, he commissioned the Copperbelt medical school. This commissioning of huge development projects was difficult for the opposition to counter as they could only make promises.

Lungu also utilised the slogan “Sonta epo abomba” (show us where your deeds are), whose genealogy was biblical passages such as “show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by my deeds”. Using the power of incumbency, Lungu also endeared himself to a significant number of traditional leaders by raising their salaries in June 2016.

Keeping his distance

Behind the persona offered to voters, many allege that Lungu is a ruthless and heartless political operator who preached peace by day and organised political violence at night. Whether or not this is the case, the president certainly tried hard to distance himself from this perception.

Both PF and UPND cadres perpetrated some gruesome violence in the run up to the election. But in response, Lungu consistently blamed Hichilema’s party, preached peace at every political rally, and even had the guts to suggest a vote for the PF was a vote for peace. Despite the violence being carried out by some of his supporters, Lungu was conscious of the need to sell himself as the best candidate to lead a peace-loving nation.

Another important issue in the campaign was the closing of The Post newspaper, which had been a fierce critic of the government. In many people’s eyes, this was a political move that confirmed Lungu as an intolerant and cruel leader. However, if the president was behind the closure, he made sure to make his move from behind the curtains. The official reason behind the closure was unpaid taxes, and in the absence of clear evidence of Lungu’s role or position in the decision, he was allowed a degree of distance from the controversy.

Whether the image Lungu sold to Zambia was phony or real – and to what extent actions such as the closure of The Post played a role in people’s perceptions – is a debate that will rage on. But what’s clear is that a significant part of the electorate seems to have bought into it when they voted on 11 August 2016. There have been allegations of rigging, and UPND has said they will be challenging the results, but so far, there has been relatively little evidence of fraud compared to the allegations that surrounded the election, though more clarity will likely emerge in the coming days. Nevertheless, irregularities in the imperfect process seem inadequate to fully explain why Lungu attracted more than a million new voters in the midst of an economic crisis.

Looking at the campaign and the reasons many voters gave, it seems that Zambians’ decisions were not just driven by economic needs as many analysts suggested they would be, but by a multiplicity of other factors – chief among them the personal image Lungu managed to cultivate and present to the country.

Dr Phillan Zamchiya is an independent researcher who holds a doctorate degree in international development from Oxford University.

12 comments

For a moment,i thought the author is Zambian.He elucidate in detail the Zambia today.But to a leader out there,who reads on the from distant land.I want to tell you that President Lungu is the man of the people.He has made the president closer to the people.He tells the people that he misses his days,when he could walk free and visit friends and chat with everyone.He tells people that i am but just a person like you and i can get sick an be hospitalized and heal like everybody else.He tells the people that i was raised by a marketeer and i know the suffering out there….If the man of the people of Chinua Achebe is anything to go by..our Man is the Man for the people.Congratulations to President Lungu.

This is probably the most simplistic and one-sided explanation l have read on Lungu’s controversial victory. (I have read about 15 so far on different platforms, and some pieces are quite compelling, l must add.) If l read this article without paying attention to the by-line, l would have concluded (and not without justification) that it was written by Lungu himsel, his campaign manager, or his party’s Secretary General. I presume that explains why the author found it necessary to tell the readers that he is “independent”, something that should be implicit in any political analysis, let alone one written by an Oxford graduate.

It’s glossing over a lot of issues to suggest in one fell swoop that the election passed all tests for a free and fair poll and that consequently Lungu was fairly elected on the premise of him being a personable fellow.
The author fails to take into account the sustained disadvantage handed to the leading opposition party through a restricted access to wide coverage by the country’s PUBLIC media. The leader of this opposition group also saw a campaign of calumny peppered with the basest of lies, complete with outlandish claims that he practised some sort human sacrifice satanic rituals. If the electoral ethics code was followed to the latter, such snide coming from mainly the Lungu camp would not have seen the light of day or would have attracted serious censure or worse still severe sanctions like a periodic ban from campaigning.
With such skulduggery therefore, the ruling party had a significant advantage. Then with the fact that they never completely presented themselves as being completely clueless on the economy; the ruling party were always with the unfair advantage.
It will be too simplistic and probably bordering on the offensive to suggest that voters would relegate issues of the economy to matter less than how affable a person carries themselves. Surely a voter who has to subsist on less than $2 a day would not take kindly to suggest that their paltry income didn’t really matter on reasons they had to vote. Actually, consider that most who live on these amounts have to earn them working for abusive and harsh employers. Many of them cope with this treatment for the need to earn some sort of a living. As such having a kind face or a genteel persona would matter less to them.
Lungu won because the system, and sadly as is the case with many African countries, was unfairly constructed to advantage him and hinder his rivals. He practiced politics that can easily turn violent and lead to serious human right abuses. His lieutenants shamelessly peddled dangerous tribal tones that today are now coming to roost, with increasing calls questioning the essence of Zambia being a one nation undivided.
The sad thing is that the international community seems to be downplaying all this, or at least assume it’s not really serious. And in typical fashion, attention might only be given when they will be a body count attached to these glaring violations of democracy and peace.

A little nudge on Reverine’s response. I am flummoxed at his reference to the international community downplaying issues he raises against PF candidature which are apparently sour grapes. Why do we as Africans ever think Europe and the Americas are the alpha and omega of our existence. Do we owe the white man a single dime for the oxygen that we breathe day in day out? I have very little respect to such characters surely. But we know where this is coming from. There is a sickening tradition by many African opposition groupings to court Europe and the Americas to hand hold them to power yet amnesic to the fact that elections are run and won by the people. Having followed Zambian politics since their January 2015 elections which i was part of as a regional observer under a regional observation group, and having attended and observed HH’s rallies especially in the Southern Province, i rated the man a danger and a liability to Zambian politics. You don’t win an election on tribal and ethnic rallying points. That is perilous, and it is good such politicians are rejected by voters. By and large one would not escape tribal and ethnic undertones in HH’s campaigns. One other danger with African politicians like HH is to want to ride on the support of the west. Politics that are lecced with involvement of the region’s erstwhile colonizers has largely been rejected. Zambians should look at their southern neighbors as learning points.

Like the author has put it, the minds behind Lungu were more sharper than those behind HH.
HH comes out as a know-it-all and Lungu say’s I can only do it with you, in fact if you are not told, wouldn’t even know that he’s actually a lawyer.
He appeals to the ordinary people compared to his opponent.
On the other hand, the Electoral Commission’s register had many women registered as voters than men which disadvantaged HH who had a running mate who’s a man and a well known wife barterer yet on the other hand Lungu chose a woman for a running mate.

I think when we disagree with an author – we ought to desist from challenging their independence or lack thereof! This article is good to an extent as it points out a dynamic in African politics that few fail to notice – Zambia’s past election was a battle of personalities and the dismantling of individuals who were holding the nation hostage.

An example was the Post Newspaper that had long discarded its Independent tag but instead walked in the corridors of power and sang the praises of anyone who abdicated their position and made the Post proprietor King – Zambians were about sick of this.

Some of the mistakes that cost UPND the election was the move to accept all the individuals that the ruling Patriotic Front (PF) rejected, by so doing, UPND started looking like an off-shoot for all frustrated PF cadres.

Other grave mistakes that Hichilema made included shifting positions depending on who sided with his party or fell out with the PF – this lack of consistency and failure to give praise where due and offer constructive criticism where necessary, went a long way in demonstrating that HH and the UPND could not be trusted.

Of course, the UPND grew its electoral collage by almost a 100% but the impact hasn’t been felt by the ruling who have also increased their numbers following the vacuum created by the demise of the former ruling party MMD.

The shadow of privatisation still haunts HH to this day who is viewed by some quarters as having enriched himself at the expense of ordinary Zambians. His decision to support the Post Newspaper and their failure to honour their tax obligations may also have cost him some votes.

This election is a lesson to all those analysts and pundits who assume they can predict or understand the psyche of a nation when factors outside the equation often times than not, play a major role in winning elections.

HH and UPND are still relevant to Zambia and have a shot at the leadership, it all depends on how they play their cards post-election.

Economics at best is outdated.
Find me an Economist how will take into his/her account the supremacy of the God we worship, and his effect on Economics.

And also the fact that by some Devine hand, some people are chosen for certain seasons. If one can factor this argument in the interpretation/analysis of the just ended elections, then I will listen.

Human beings are social beings, you can never use a formulae to understand, or solve their problems. Most of the people that I see critical of Zambian politics is mainly because what they hoped for, or what they were promised now seems too far.

Somewhat fine article though I don’t agree that Zambians ignored economic factors to prefer Lungu to Mr fix it. Most Zambians understood the reason for the economic downturn and they realized that Mr fix it was just taking advantage of the situation to woe unsuspecting voters. Again it boils down to how well citizens loathe suffering so much that some were unwilling to compromise and viciously denounced Lungu as being incompetent. Lungu was supposed to ensure copper prices remained high, ensure drought was checked, ensure the Kariba dam was filled with a lot of water to stop load shedding etc. Stronger minds were looking at the bigger picture, the long term whereas weak minds were looking at the short term, myopic expectations through Mr fix it. But Mr fix it in the eyes of most citizens is seen as a despot, hateful, arrogant and bitter man reminiscent with his ethnic background. Be at work, college or social gathering Tongas are perceived to be very segregative. people shudder to think of what would happen if power was bestowed to him. For real.

About

African Arguments is a pan-African platform for news analysis, comment and opinion. We seek to analyse issues facing the continent, investigate the stories that matter, and amplify a diversity of voices.

Get in touch

Brought to you by

By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.

Thank you!

Your interest in our free content, our in-depth reporting and analysis of developments across Africa is what keeps us going. This website is core of our mission and will always be free to read.

But this website is not everything we do. We also publish the Africa Insiders’ Newsletter. It is our offer to serious Africa nerds. People who not only want to read the occasional feature article, but want to stay up to date with what is happening across the continent.

Subscribers to the Africa Insiders’ Newsletter get:

Our main weekly newsletter, summarizing developments in politics, public health, conflict and society from across the continent.